The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making or filing a false report signed in the capacity of a licensed chiropractic physician, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed chiropractor in Florida since 1978, holding license number CH0002696. Petitioner requires licensed chiropractors to file Mandatory Practitioner Profile Questionnaire Packets (Profiles). The subject Profile was due on or before April 15, 1999. The Profile asks the licensee to supply various items of information and answer several questions. Section II of the Profile requires information concerning "medical education." In response to the question of what medical school Respondent attended, he wrote: "Logan 'Quack Con-Artist' School of Chiropractic." In response to the type of his degree, Respondent wrote: "Quack Con-Artist Chiropractic Degree." In response to questions concerning medical training, Respondent answered: "'Fraudulent' Automobile Personal Injury Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)" and "'Fraudulent' Workers Compensation Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)." Respondent also added to these responses, as well as the responses cited in the preceding paragraph, the following: "Caveat: see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director)." Section VIII of the Profile requires information concerning criminal offenses. This section asks: "have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal misdemeanor or felony in any jurisdiction?" The question then states: "If "YES," briefly describe the offense(s), indicate whether the conviction is under appeal, and attach copy of notice of appeal." The form supplies three lines for each of these items of information. Respondent answered "no" to the first question in Section VIII and left the remainder of the section blank. The Profile concludes, immediately above the signature line: "I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 455.624, 458.327, 458.331, 459.013, 459.015, 460.413, 461.013, 775.082, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes." Respondent signed on the signature line and added the date of April 7, 1999. Immediately beneath the signature line, Respondent added: "Notice: Signed under caveat--see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director." Respondent's four-page letter to Gloria Henderson dated April 7, 1999, references the Profile, notifies Ms. Henderson and Petitioner of Respondent's intent to sue, and demands that Petitioner omit Respondent's listing from a website of chiropractors because, in part, "I do NOT accept their 'valueless treatment' known as an "adjustment" (it is a waste of money and time), and because I practice health care from an "Allopathic" (medical approach) point of view, including but not limited to, surgery, drug prescription, physical therapy " Respondent states in the letter that the Petitioner's failure to incorporate his comments in all computer files listing him as a chiropractor will result in his filing a federal action under tort and constitutional law seeking $1 million plus punitive damages. The final caveat in the April 7 letter states: My (Roy A. Day) signature on the instant letter, and the associated completed questionnaire, reflects the denial of Roy A. Day to have meaningful access to so-called "licensed attorney" courts of law, and the associated denials of each and all discovery, and trial by jury, and the right to each and all appeals, and the denial to write a brief on appeals, and each and all associated "railroading" of Roy A. Day, with the overlay for "licensed attorney" courts of law to deny the law, facts and evidence existed when they pertained to Roy A. Day, since Roy A. Day is not represented by a so-called "licensed attorney" at $300.00 per hour in artificial-monopolistic legal fees. In addition, the signature reflects each and all associated "forced and coerced" action, specifically, Roy A. Day has been denied "due process and equal protection of the law." On February 6, 1995, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order of Probation. The Order states that Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking, interception of oral communication, and uttering a check with a forged endorsement. The Order withholds adjudication and places Respondent on probation for two years. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of two counts of the third-degree felony of uttering a check with a forged endorsement, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. The checks totaled approximately $20,000, and, sometime between March 13 and May 5, 1993, Respondent passed each check knowing that the signature of his brother, Donald Day, was forged. For each count, the court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 130 days he had already served in jail, and the sentences ran concurrently. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of the third-degree felony of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes. The stalking consisted of repeated and harassing telephone calls that Respondent made to the house of a person who had, at one time, expressed interest in purchasing a home in which Respondent had an interest, but later decided not to pursue the purchase. The court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 133 days that he had already served in jail, and this sentence ran concurrently with the sentences for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Petitioner lacked a copy of a judgment concerning the interception of oral communications. This offense arose out of Respondent's surreptitious recording of a conversation that he had with a police officer who was investigating the stalking charges. Absent a copy of the judgment, however, insufficient evidence of this conviction exists for the purpose of this disciplinary case. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he did not disclose these criminal convictions on the Profile because doing so would somehow implicate him as a "co-conspirator" in the injustices perpetrated upon him by the authorities involved in prosecuting these offenses. Respondent falsely failed to disclose on the Profile his convictions for aggravated stalking and uttering a check with a forged instrument. His failure to disclose this information constitutes fraudulent concealment of these criminal offenses. In a fairly straightforward case, Respondent has filed nearly 250 pleadings containing thousands of pages. He also abused the subpoena power of this tribunal by subpoenaing judges and court officials from every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Last but not least, Respondent has defamed and discredited numerous persons without apparent reason, although some question exists whether Respondent is capable of exercising consistent control over the impulses leading to at least some of these utterances. The crimes of which Respondent was convicted may have arisen out of family disagreements, possibly concerning the sale of a family home. Respondent may be obsessively preoccupied with actual or perceived injustices that he suffered as a result of this transaction. Undoubtedly, Respondent compulsively litigates everything that has the most remote bearing upon this transaction, using court files as archives for materials that he believes will vindicate him, despite an ardent and often- expressed repulsion for judges, lawyers, and others connected with the legal system. No penalty but revocation is suitable under the circumstances, absent a showing by Respondent that he has commenced or is continuing therapy and that the prognosis is reasonably good. The record lacks such evidence. Respondent is not unintelligent, nor is he entirely devoid of insight. His thinking, although at times disordered, is capable of impressive organizational efforts, as best revealed by his meticulous organization in his proposed recommended order of what otherwise seemed to be a bewildering variety of materials that Respondent has seen fit to file in this case. Although his behavior seems at times compulsive, Respondent was capable of a certain level of self-restraint, at least during the hearing and when not directly confronting the underlying transaction or crimes. If they occur at some point in the future, successful diagnosis and treatment of Respondent should inform Petitioner's interpretation of the events and behaviors described in this Recommended Order, if Respondent seeks relicensure as a chiropractor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr. Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Wings S. Benton, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Medical Quality Assurance Practitioner Regulation--Legal Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Roy A. Day Post Office Box 33 Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-0033
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for the answer he gave in response to Question 21 on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1999. The practical examination consisted of three parts: "technique," "physical diagnosis," and "x-ray interpretation." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "technique" and "x-ray interpretation" portions of the examination; however, he failed the "physical diagnosis" portion of the examination (PD Test), with a score of 68. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of "physical diagnosis" by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, verbally and/or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the two examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the PD Test, all examiners were provided with instructions regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading the candidates' performance. Candidates were provided with a Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) in advance of the licensure examination. Among other things, the CIB listed, by category ("acupuncture," "physical diagnosis," "technique," and "x-ray") reference materials that could "be used to prepare for the examination." The list was preceded by the following advisement: The list is not to be considered all- inclusive. Thus, other comparable texts may be used to prepare for the examination. Under the category of "x-ray" the following "references" were listed: Eisenburg, Gastrointestinal Radiology- A Pattern Approach, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, Second Edition, 1989. Paul & Juhl, Essentials of Radiologic Imaging, Hagerstown, MD, Lippencott, Sixth edition, 1993. Taveras & Ferrucci, Radiology: Diagnosis- Imaging-Intervention, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, 1986. Five-volume set, loose- leaf renewed in July 1994. Yocum, T. R., & Rowe, L. J., Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, First Edition 1986. Not on the list under "x-ray" or under any other category was Dr. Robert Percuoco's Radiographic Positioning for the Chiropractor (Dr. Percuoco's Publication), the text book used by Dr. Percuoco in the radiology classes he teaches at the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa (Palmer). Palmer was the nation's first college of chiropractic, and is accredited by the Council of Chiropractic Education. Petitioner graduated from Palmer and was taught radiology by Dr. Percuoco. Question 21 on the PD Test was an eight-point "diagnostic imaging" question (with no provision for partial credit) that asked the candidates to "demonstrate a Lateral Thoracic view." Among the six items the candidates had to address in answering the question was the central ray. Page 54 of the Dr. Percuoco's Publication describes what, according to the author, needs to be done to obtain a view of the lateral thoracic spine. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows (Dr. Percuoco's Approach): Center the central ray to the film. The vertical portion of the central ray should pass posterior to the head of the humeri. In responding to Question 21 on the PD Test, Petitioner relied on the foregoing excerpt from Dr. Percuoco's Publication. He told the examiners that the central ray should be centered to the film and that the vertical portion of the central ray should pass one inch posterior to the head of the humerus. The two examiners evaluating his performance both gave Petitioner an "A" (or no points) for his response to Question 21. In so doing, they acted reasonably and in accordance with the grading instructions they had received prior to the administration of the PD Test. Dr. Percuoco's Approach (upon which Petitioner relied) is not generally accepted in the chiropractic community. A reasonably prudent chiropractor, in taking an x-ray of the lateral thoracic spine, would do what was necessary to have the central ray pass, not "posterior to the head of the humeri," but "approximately 3 inches inferior to [the] sternal angle," as Drs. Yocum and Rowe, two of the most respected radiologists in the country today, instruct in their text, Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, which was one of the reference materials listed in the CIB (Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach). Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach yields a more exact and complete view of the lateral thoracic spine than does Dr. Percuoco's Approach. Because Petitioner failed to incorporate Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach in his response to Question 21, the examiners were justified in determining that Petitioner did not answer all six parts of the question correctly and that he therefore should be awarded an "A" (or no points) for his response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a chiropractic physician who practices in Daytona Beach, Florida, and is licensed by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to practice in the State of Florida. The Respondent opened the office where he presently practices in September, 1978. On or about July 10, 1979, Judith M. Matovina telephoned the Respondent's office regarding severe headaches which she had been suffering. She had been referred to the Respondent by a friend, Michael Davis, who was studying to be a chiropractor, and who was also a friend of the Respondent. An appointment was initially made for Thursday, July 12; Ms. Matovina preferred to make an appointment for a time that would not interfere with her job, and an appointment was ultimately made for 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 1979. Ms. Matovina arrived at the Respondent's office for her appointment at the scheduled time. She sat in the waiting room for approximately five minutes. Dr. Wagner came out to the waiting room after he treated another patient and introduced himself to Ms. Matovina. He gave her a pamphlet to read regarding the treatment of headaches by chiropractors, and a form to fill out which provided personal background and a description of symptoms. She filled out the form and handed it to the Respondent who escorted her to the examination room. He asked her questions about her headaches and about her personal life. She responded that she did not believe the headaches were tension related. He told her to remove her clothes and put on a gown. He left the examination room. Ms. Matovina removed her bra and blouse, but left her slacks and shoes on. After knocking, the Respondent reentered the examination room. The Respondent thereafter engaged in conduct, a portion of which was legitimate and proper chiropractic examination, treatment and therapy; and a part of which can only be construed as an effort to induce Ms. Matovina to engage in sexual activity with the Respondent. He engaged in conversation about his poor relationship with his wife, his relationships with his girlfriends, and the fact that he had had a vasectomy. Ms. Matovina had not been to a chiropractor before, and she expressed fear as to the nature of some of the manipulations and other treatment which the Respondent performed. He referred to her as "such a baby" in response to her fear. He examined her eyes, and told her that she had pretty blue eyes and that his girlfriends had brown eyes. Ms. Matovina asked him where his receptionist was, and the Respondent responded that he did not have a receptionist on Saturday because that is when he scheduled his pretty patients. During the course of one manipulation in which the Respondent held Ms. Matovina's feet, he told her that she had cute feet. In the course of one manipulation in which the patient stood against the wall with the Respondent's arm around her waist, he told her, "They are playing our song," in response to the music on the office stereo system. He held her hand as if he was going to dance with her. He kissed her twice on the shoulder, moved his hand toward her breast, and brushed his hand across her breast. Several times during the course of the examination, Ms. Matovina said that it would be best for her to leave, but the Respondent kept saying that they should try one more manipulation or therapy treatment. Ms. Matovina protested during the course of much of the treatment, and eventually insisted upon getting dressed and leaving. During the examination, the Respondent on several occasions referred to Ms. Matovina's "pretty blue eyes," to the fact that she was "such a baby," to the fact that he had other girlfriends, and a vasectomy. After she got dressed, the Respondent behaved as though none of these things had happened. Ms. Matovina insisted upon paying for the session at that time rather than the following Monday, when the Respondent wanted to schedule another session. Ms. Matovina then left the office. She was there for approximately two hours. The following week, the Respondent had his office contact Ms. Matovina to schedule further sessions, but she refused to accept or to respond to the phone calls.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the November, 1987, Chiropractic (Proprietary Drug) licensure examination. The Petitioner challenged two questions on that examination, but at the hearing presented evidence regarding only one of the challenged questions, namely, question 29. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf, but did not call any other witnesses. The Petitioner also presented copies of pages from several published reference books. The parties stipulated that official recognition of those pages could be taken. The Petitioner also offered other documents which were rejected as exhibits and are not included in the record. The Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, an expert in the fields of pharmacy and pharmacology. The Respondent also offered several exhibits which were received in evidence. Following the hearing, the parties were allowed until January 9, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order, the factual aspects of which are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the proceedings at the formal hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact. In November of 1987, the Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination. The Petitioner has been assigned a score of 73.3 on the proprietary drug portion of that examination. A score of 75 is the minimum passing score on the proprietary drug portion of the examination. If the Petitioner is given credit for one additional question, he will be entitled to a passing score on the subject portion of the examination. The Petitioner was not given credit for his answer choice on question number 29. He chose answer B. The Respondent contends that the only correct answer choice is answer A. The issue of whether the Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answer choice on question number 29 turns on whether use of an inhalant containing epinephrine is seriously contraindicated by both of the following conditions: angina pectoris and pregnancy. The use of such an inhalant is seriously contraindicated by the condition of angina pectoris. Epinephrine should never be administered to a patient who suffers from angina pectoris. The use of such an inhalant is not seriously contraindicated by the condition of pregnancy. An epinephrine based inhalant should be used with caution during pregnancy, but the condition of pregnancy does not contraindicate the use of such an inhalant. The Petitioner's choice of answer B is an incorrect choice, because the condition of pregnancy does not seriously contraindicate the use of a inhalant containing epinephrine. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to credit for his answer to question number 29.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be issued assigning to the Petitioner a final grade of 73.3 and concluding that the Petitioner has failed the subject examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4011 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consists of four unnumbered paragraphs, each of which is more in the nature of argument than in the nature of proposed findings of fact. Nevertheless, to the extent those paragraphs assert or imply factual matters, they are addressed as follows: First Paragraph: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second Paragraph: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Angina pectoris is the only correct answer. Third Paragraph: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth Paragraph: Rejected as constituting a conclusion which is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: (No findings were proposed by Respondent.) COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Marino, D.C., pro se 210 South Street Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 William A. Leffler, III, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for the May 1988, Chiropractic Physiotherapy certification examination. The exam consists of a written and an oral part, covering various areas of chiropractic physiotherapy. The written and oral parts of the exam are graded separately and a candidate must score 75 points on each part in order to pass and be certified in Physiotherapy. Petitioner had previously passed the written portion of the exam and was attempting only the oral portion of the physiotherapy exam. Petitioner claims he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam in the areas of manual, ultrasound and galvanic therapy. At the hearing Petitioner abandoned his claim that he was incorrectly graded on the galvanic therapy portion of the exam and that claim is not considered further for purposes of this recommended order. Petitioner obtained a score of 66.6 on the oral exam. The oral practice exam for physiotherapy certification is graded subjectively according to a candidate's response to questions asked by two grading chiropractors. The graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five years in Florida and have undergone some grade standardization training prior to examining the candidate for certification. Each grader assigns his or her point score independent of the other grader. A candidate's response therefore has two scores assigned by each grader. The points given by each grader are totalled. The two totals are then averaged together for the overall score on the exam. Some difference in the points assigned often occur. However, the difference between the two scores seldom exceeds 1 point and would therefore not be an unreasonable discrepancy when consideration is given to the effects of grading a subjective test and the effects of averaging the two point scores given by each grader. The grade range is from 1-4 points with one being the lowest score and four being the highest score. A score of 4 points is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. A score of 3 points is given when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency in the subject area tested. A score of 2 points is given when the candidate's answer is wrong but not dangerous to the patient. A score of 1 point is given when a candidate's response is wrong and dangerous to the patient. Dr. Brennan scored a 1.5 and 2.5 on the manual portion of the exam and a 1.5 and 2.5 on the ultrasound portion of the exam. In both instances Petitioner's answers to the questions covering the manual and ultrasound areas of the exam were wrong. Therefore the scores given by each grader could not exceed 2.9 points. Even if the highest allowable score is awarded for Petitioner's responses the additional points are not sufficient to raise Petitioner's score to a 75. Based on the above facts Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy. More importantly, however, Petitioner's answer to the ultrasound portion of the exam was wrong and dangerous to the patient. Petitioner was clearly confused by the manner in which the question was asked by the examiner. However, the confusion did not exclude the candidate's ability or opportunity to give the correct answer in order to take the safest course of therapy to the patient. To Petitioner's credit he did demonstrate competency in his responses to the other question pertaining to the ultrasound area. It was the application of that knowledge that Petitioner failed to demonstrate. The explanations given by each grader, justifying a failing score given to the candidate, reflect the above. Therefore, neither of the graders scores on the ultrasound portion of the exam can be said to be incorrect and should remain the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the two grader's scores on the manual and ultrasound portion of the exam were devoid of logic or reason for its respective assignment. Petitioner, therefore, failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam and should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact acid Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the Chiropractic Physiotherapy exam and should be certified in the area of Chiropractic Physiotherapy. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Brennan 5828 Rawson Lan Pensacola, Florida 32503 E. Harper Field General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Pat Gilford Executive Director 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic, is a chiropractic college located in Spartanburg, South Carolina. It is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), a regional accreditation agency that is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). Sherman College is also accredited by the Southern Conference of Straight Chiropractic Associations (SCASA), a professional accreditation agency which formerly was recognized by USDOE, but has never been recognized by COPA. Sheryll Indiaan is a graduate of Sherman College who applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractic physician under rule 21D- 11.001(2)(c), F.A.C. On April 7, 1992 the Board of Chiropractic (Respondent, or Board) issued an order of intent to deny the application. After denying Dr. Indiaan's request for formal administrative hearing and conducting an informal hearing on December 10, 1992, the Board issued its final order of denial on March 3, 1993. That order is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The basis for the Board's denial of Dr. Indiaan's application as stated in its final order is: ...as a matter of law, Sherman did not meet the requirements of section 460.406(1)(c), F.S., because it had only regional or institutional accreditation by USDOE and COPA and it did not have professional or specialized accreditation by an agency recognized by USDOE and COPA. (Final Order entered March 3, 1993) Section 460.406(1)(c), F.S. was amended in 1990, as follows: 460.406 Licensure by examination.-- (1) Any person desiring to be licensed as a chiropractic physician shall apply to the department to take the licensure examination. * * * The department shall examine each applicant who the board certifies has: * * * (c) Submitted proof satisfactory to the department that he is a graduate of a chiropractic college accredited by, or has status with an agency or its successor which is recognized and approved by, the U.S. Office of education or and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation or by the department, provided that the department applies the same standards used by the U.S. Office of Education which are applicable to this state when approving an agency. In evaluating any application for approval as an accrediting agency, the department shall give full recognition to the different philosophies of chiropractic prevailing in the profession and shall not reject any application solely because the accrediting agency is an adherent of one such philosophy as distinguished from another. No application for a license to practice chiropractic shall be denied solely because the applicant is a graduate of a chiropractic college that subscribes to one philosophy of chiropractic as distinguished from another. Any application for approval filed by any accrediting agency shall be acted upon by the department within 180 days of the filing of the application. The policy of the Board, as reflected in the Indiaan denial order, was first formulated and applied in 1991, after the Board was informed of the amendment to section 460.406, F.S. Six Sherman College graduates were told, the day before the March examination, that they would not be permitted to sit for the examination. After a follow-up emergency meeting, the Board voted to allow the students to take the examination, but that licensure would be withheld pending verification of Sherman College's accreditation. Prior to this action, Sherman College's graduates had been allowed to take the examination. On August 8, 1991, the Board considered argument and testimony and voted to adopt its policy of requiring both regional and professional accreditation. That policy is the basis for the rule amendments which are the subject of this proceeding. Rule 21D-11.001(2), F.A.C. provides requirements for application for licensure examination. The amendment, published on August 21, 1992, provides: 21D-11.001 Application for Licensure Examination. No change. No change. No change. No change. Are graduates of a chiropractic college accredited by, or has (sic) status with an agency, or its successor, which is recognized and approved by the United States Department of Education, and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation or by the Department of Professional Regulation, provided that the Department of Professional Regulation applies the same standards used by the United States Department of Education which are applicable to the State of Florida when approving an agency. For the purpose of determining whether a chiropractic college is recognized and approved by the United States Department of Education and Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, the Board will require the applicant to show not only regional accreditation but also professional accreditation of the chiropractic college from which the applicant graduated. When no hearing was requested, the rule became effective. Notice of amendment to rule 21D-17.0045(1), F.A.C. was published on February 17, 1993. That rule addresses requirements for an individual to enter a chiropractic physician training program. The proposed amendment provides as follows: 21D-17.0045 Chiropractic Physician Candidate Training Program. (1) For the purpose of this rule, a "chiropractic physician candidate" is defined as an individual who has received his/her degree in chiropractic from a chiropractic college accredited by, or has status with which an agency or its successor which is recognized and approved by the U.S. Office of Education and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation or by the department, provided that the department applies the same standards used by the U.S. Office of Accreditation which are applicable to this state when approving an agency. To demonstrate recognition and approval by the U.S. Office of Education and the Council on Postsecondary accreditation, a candidate must show that the chiropractic college from which the candidate received his/her degree, maintained both regional and professional accreditation. Sherman College has regional, but not professional accreditation, recognized by both USDOE and COPA. USDOE and COPA each recognize regional and professional accrediting agencies. Accreditation, both regional and professional, is a quality assurance process for educational institutions. While the focus of regional versus professional accreditation might be different, for a single purpose institution such as a Bible college, business school or chiropractic school, the difference is negligible. This testimony by Ralph G. Miller, executive vice president of the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), Respondent's expert on accreditation, is revealing: Q [by Ms. Daire] Is there a difference between regional or institutional accreditation from specialized or programmatic specialized accreditation? A [by Dr. Miller] You know, let me state a paradox in accreditation. The paradox is they are the same, but they are different. Q Will you please explain? A The form is the same, the process, and this is foisted by agreement of the associations upon the organizations and also by societal need as well as in these cases, U.S. DE and COPA. The differences come in the substantive aspects of what is required of the professional or programmatic areas versus the institutional or the regional. The institutional and regional are almost synonymous. In fact, they are. In some cases you'll have single-purpose institutions, such as Bible colleges, theology schools, some business, the association of private schools, business schools. These are single-purpose institutions not recognized by the regionals so they sort of dangle out there, and COPA has recognized them as a special unit, but U.S. DE does it a little differently. Q Okay. I don't know if you have answered my question, but is regional accreditation different from that of professional accreditation not with regard to process and procedure but with regard to the substance? A Yes, substance. Q The substance is different? A The substance is different? Q How is it different? A I think there is a societal aspect when one must consider when we review professional accreditation and that is, assurance of quality in the professional areas. The professional associations usually speak to this in a variety of ways, some call them functions; other call them standards; other call it essentials. The regionals have broadly stated standards which look at the institution as a whole to ascertain quality of academic ability, to assure that the institutions are doing what they are saying but not with the specificity as the professional association may, and I'm not saying that they are any less effective. Q Is there a need for both types of accreditation? A Yes, there is. Q What is the need that is met by institutional or regional accreditation? A It's assurance of the quality of education of our young people that go through the various disciplinary programs of history and sociology and possibly -- I can't think some of the sciences, chemistry, these various disciplines that need, society needs insurance. We don't have a governmental agency, if you would, such as the Ministry of Education that reviews these. So this has been a voluntary and very effective part of the post secondary accreditation over 100 to 125 years. * * * Q Is there a difference in site team visits professional and institutional, or are they the same? A In form they are the same, but in substance they can be very similar. Q Tell me about how they are the same in form. A They are the same in terms of the process, the kinds of -- the team effort, possibly the composite review of the standards and the process they have in ascertaining whether or not the institution is doing what it says it's doing. But the focus with the professional organizations comes in the area of the clinical component or that component dealing with the specific professional, profession need ahead. (transcript, pp 220-223) Louis W. Bender was qualified as an expert in accreditation matters on behalf of Petitioner. He is an accreditation consultant who has served on regional accreditation review teams and on a review team for SCASA, a professional accreditation agency. In his experience, the regional and professional agencies alike determine whether the programs being taught are preparing students for employment in their field. This includes review of all aspects of the educational program, from the course work to the clinical. A regional review team for a single purpose institution such as Sherman College would include individuals with knowledge of the curriculum in the chiropractic and the general education area. Members on the team would include individuals in the field being reviewed, like chiropractors. The SACS accreditation team that evaluated Sherman College included chiropractors and academicians from chiropractic colleges with professional accreditation. They evaluated the clinical program and curriculum leading up to the clinical program and commented on it in their review. The debate over relative merits of professional versus regional accreditation is mirrored in the debate over "straight" versus "mixer" philosophy of chiropractic. Simply described, the straight chiropractic professional concentrates on remedying subluxations (misalignments) of the spine as a means to good health. The "mixer" professional is involved in a wider range of health care services. Sherman College is a "straight" chiropractic institution, as reflected in its name, but it still recognizes that state licensing requirements throughout the country mandate the teaching of courses beyond straight practice; the college offers those courses to enable its students to pass state examinations and comply with state laws. Section 460.406(1)(c), F.S. expressly forbids the denial of an application for licensure or examination based on the preference of one philosophy over another. Petitioners contend that the rule amendments at issue violate that prohibition. The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) is the only chiropractic professional accrediting agency that is recognized by both USDOE and COPA. Thus, CCE accreditation is required for compliance with the rule amendments. Sherman College is not accredited by CCE but has applied for that accreditation. CCE does accredit programs that ascribe to the straight philosophy and has rejected accreditation to mixer institutions. Petitioners' claim of discrimination is not substantiated. Sherman College's claim that it is substantially affected by the rule amendments is supported by the weight of evidence. Before the Board voted to discontinue allowing Sherman college graduates to take the licensure examination the college had approximately 20 students from Florida enrolled. That enrollment has dropped now to a single student out of a total of approximately 132 students. There are approximately 83 alumni of Sherman College practicing in Florida who could otherwise refer students to the college. An institution whose students are barred from practice in a state loses reputation and suffers economic loss, not just in lost tuition and fees but also through loss of donations from alumni. Sherman College receives an average of $400 per year per graduate donations. Dr. Thomas Gelardi, the president and founder of Sherman College reasonably estimates that it loses several thousand dollars a month, primarily because of the rules' impact on its enrollment.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, should receive a passing grade on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractor and arranged to take the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. She received passing grades on two sections of the examination (Florida Laws and Rules, and X- ray Interpretation) but failing grades in Physical Diagnosis and Technique. During the pendency of this proceeding, it was stipulated that Petitioner should receive a passing grade in Technique, leaving only a failing grade of 74 (with 75 passing) in Physical Diagnosis. Since 75 was passing, Petitioner would pass the examination either if she is given credit for an additional answer, or if a question for which she did not get credit is eliminated. On July 24, 1998, Petitioner telephoned Respondent, the Department of Health, to request that a "review form for Chiropractic" be sent to her address in Dunedin, Florida. On July 30, 1998, Petitioner requested a post-examination review, which provided the same address in Dunedin, Florida. Respondent arranged for the review on September 10, 1998, and attempted to notify Petitioner of the review by letter dated August 21 and postmarked August 25, 1998, and addressed to Petitioner at her address in Dunedin, Florida, certified mail, return receipt requested. Not long after asking for the review, Petitioner moved to Georgia. Petitioner gave the United States Postal Service (USPS) a forwarding address in Cartersville, Georgia, but never notified Respondent of a change of address. When the USPS received Respondent's letter to Petitioner, it placed a postal stamp dated August 30, 1998, on the envelope, bearing the Cartersville address and a request addressed to Petitioner to notify the sender (Respondent) of Petitioner's Cartersville address. The USPS attempted to deliver the letter to Petitioner at the Cartersville, Georgia, address on September 2 and 7, 1998, but could not and had to leave notices for Petitioner to claim the letter. When Petitioner did not claim the letter, the Postal Service "X"-ed out the postal stamp with the Cartersville address and returned the letter to Respondent on September 17, 1998, with a notation that Petitioner had not claimed the letter. The USPS "X"-ed out the postal stamp to signify that the Cartersville address was not a good address. Respondent received the returned letter on September 23, 1998. Because the review notice could not be delivered, Petitioner never received notice. Not having received notice, Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled examination review and was recorded as a "no-show" even though the post office had not yet delivered a return receipt to Respondent. Ten to fifteen percent of the 200 examination reviews a year do not "show." Respondent treats them the same way as it treated Petitioner in this case, which is the same way Respondent treats examination "no-shows." It is not Respondent's practice to attempt to contact either examination or review "no-shows." Petitioner did not re-contact Respondent until August 1999. Initially, Petitioner applied to re-take the Chiropractic Examination in November 1999 but withdrew her application on September 27, 1999, when she realized that her national board part I score expired on December 31, 1998, and her national board scores for parts II and III were going to expire on December 31, 1999. On December 31, 1999, Petitioner attempted to "lock-in" her national board scores but was told that it was too late. When Petitioner realized that there was no way to preserve her national board scores, she renewed her request to review the May 1998 examination. With the assistance of her new attorney, Petitioner persuaded Respondent to agree to an examination review, which was scheduled for February 2000. In its proposed recommended order (PRO), Respondent contended that examination review in February 2000 was "for the sole purpose of preparing for the next examination." (Emphasis in PRO.) Respondent cited no evidence to support this contention, and none is found in the record. Petitioner's examination challenge was filed on March 15, 1998. Respondent also contended in its PRO that Petitioner should be barred from challenging the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination under the doctrine of laches. But not only was laches not raised as a defense in the Joint Response to Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions or at any time prior to Respondent's PRO, there was no evidence that the delay in the examination challenge made it difficult for Respondent to defend against the challenge. Petitioner's examination challenge blamed Respondent for the delay in reviewing the May 1998 examination and for the expiration of her national board scores. It also complained of alleged lack of anonymity and erasure marks on the answer key as well as on "the visceral portion of physical diagnosis." It then challenged two specific physiotherapy questions: one dealing with ultrasound (Question 23); and another dealing with cryotherapy (Question 24). As to the ultrasound, Petitioner essentially complained that she should not have been tested on ultrasound because, as a "straight" chiropractor (as opposed to a "mixer"), Petitioner did not use ultrasound in her practice and did not study it in school. As to the cryotherapy, Petitioner also complained that the answer she gave on the examination was correct and should have received credit. Finally, Petitioner challenged the Technique section of the examination (which Respondent eventually conceded). Like Question 23, Question 24 was worth 5 points on the 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Question 24 consisted of two parts, A and B, each worth 2.5 points. Question 24 dealt with the use of cryotherapy. Part A required a demonstration, which Petitioner clearly failed. (Petitioner did not challenge part A.) After Petitioner attempted her demonstration, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but was somewhat different from the actual first subpart of Question 24B. It does not appear from the evidence that Petitioner herself read the first subpart of Question 24B; she clearly did not read the question aloud. But it does not appear that Petitioner was confused by the way in which the examiner asked the first subpart of Question 24B. Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B varied from (was more conservative than) the accepted answer for time and length of cryotherapy treatment using ice packs. Petitioner testified that she answered conservatively because the hypothetical patient was 60 years old. Petitioner's proposed, more conservative treatment may be appropriate for 60 year-olds with diabetes, fragile skin and blood vessels, or other hypersensitivity to cold due to aging. But for most other 60 year-olds, normal cryotherapy protocol is not contraindicated. Question 24 was silent as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated in the hypothetical patient. During the examination, Petitioner did not ask for clarification as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated. It could not be ascertained from the videotape of the examination whether Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B was adjusted to take into account possible contraindications due to age of the hypothetical patient. The authoritative source for the accepted answer (Applied Physiotherapy, Second Edition, by Jaskoviak and Schafer, p. 249) stated: Cold packs are usually applied for 20-30 minutes when maximum effect is to be achieved. After 30 minutes, the packs lose their necessary degree of therapeutic coolness and must be returned to the refrigerated tank. The point of the authoritative source appears to be that cold packs do not remain cold enough for maximum therapeutic effect for longer than 30 minutes, not that cold packs must be used for 30 minutes for maximum therapeutic effect. It also does not rule out more conservative treatment for a 60 year-old, even assuming no contraindications. Respondent's expert testified persuasively that the authoritative source supported and bolstered his independent knowledge from personal education and extensive experience that the accepted answer was correct, not only generally but also in the case of a 60 year-old female with no contraindications. Petitioner's two experts testified to the contrary. But one had virtually no education, training, and experience in physiotherapy, and the other's education, training, and experience in physiotherapy was far less than Respondent's expert. When Petitioner finished her answer to the first subpart of Question 24B, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but differed significantly from the actual second subpart of Question 24B. The second subpart of Question 24B asked for a listing of physical sensations related to cryotherapy, in sequential order. But the examiner did not initially ask for them in sequential order. The evidence was clear that Petitioner herself did not reread the second subpart of Question 24B; again, she clearly did not read the question aloud. Petitioner began to answer the examiner's question, naming second and fourth sensations in the sequence. As Petitioner paused in her response, one of the examiners told Petitioner that there were four sensations and that Petitioner was required to name all of them in sequential order. The examiner then repeated the sensation mentioned by Petitioner as the first in the sequence. Petitioner continued her response by repeating only the second sensation in the sequence, adding the third sensation in the sequence, and not repeating the fourth sensation in the sequence. Petitioner never named the first sensation in the sequence. At the end of her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B, she commented: "I'm sorry. That's the best I can do. I guess this is why I should have taken physiotherapy." Petitioner argued that the examiner(s) violated the Examiner Manual for the Chiropractic Examination May 1998 (the Examiner Manual) and, in so doing, may have misled Petitioner into thinking that the first sensation mentioned by Petitioner in her answer to the second subpart to Question 24B was the first sensation in the sequence and may have caused Petitioner to omit the actual first sensation in the sequence. The Examiner Manual stated in pertinent part: During the examination If necessary, remind the candidate to read the questions out loud for the video. Do not read the questions to the candidate or ask the candidate for additional information. (Emphasis in original.) We have agreed on the following solutions to possible problems: * * * The answer is incomplete: ask for a complete answer. * * * Avoid Giving Clues DO NOT ask any additional questions, and DO NOT provide any feedback about the correctness of the answers. When the candidate gives a wrong answer, do not ask the candidate to answer it again. You may think you are doing the candidate a favor, but most of the time candidates do not think that way. While the examiner(s) may have misled Petitioner as to the first sensation in the sequence, Petitioner also never gave the last three sensations in proper order. The evidence did not prove that the examiner(s) misled Petitioner in regard to those sensations. In addition, Petitioner more or less conceded to the examiners that she was guessing throughout her attempted answers to Questions 23 and 24. She told the examiners that she had no education in or knowledge of cryotherapy and did not use it in her practice. While correct guesses count as correct answers, Petitioner's admitted guessing supports the finding that she did not answer the second subpart to Question 24B correctly. Petitioner also argued that she should be given partial credit for her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B. But while partial credit was given for a completely correct answer to either subpart of Question 24B, partial credit was not given for a partially correct answer to a subpart. Petitioner did not prove that the it was arbitrary or unreasonable not to give partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart. To give Petitioner partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart of Question 24B would give Petitioner an unfair advantage over other candidates. Question 23 also was worth 5 points on a 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Petitioner clearly did not answer Question 23 on the use of ultrasound as physiotherapy. Petitioner asserted that it was unfair and improper for Respondent to ask questions on physiotherapy on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination because she had no education, training, or experience in it. Petitioner learned "straight" chiropractic at Life University in Georgia and practiced "straight" chiropractic for 12 years in Georgia. "Straight" chiropractic is limited to identification and correction of skeletal subluxations by direct manipulation. It does not use physiotherapy techniques, such as ultrasound and cryotherapy (icing). But, contrary to Petitioner's position in this case, it is found that Petitioner did have the opportunity to study physiotherapy during and after college, but she chose not to. Petitioner also asserted that Respondent gave her inadequate notice that physiotherapy questions would be on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. The Candidate Information Booklet for the May 1998 Chiropractic Licensure and Certification Examination (the Candidate Information Booklet) advised candidates approximately what areas would be covered in the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination, namely: Orthopedic and Neurological 30-35%; Diagnostic Imaging 20-25%; Case History and Physical 15-20%; Laboratory 5-10%; Diagnosis 15- 20%; and Clinical Judgment 5-10%. But it also included the following statement: Based on the Board of Chiropractic's approval of a proposal made by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, starting with the May 1998 examination, the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination will include questions relating to the practice of Physiotherapy. The inclusion of these questions does not alter the percentage of areas to be tested on the Physical Diagnosis portion [of] the examination, as stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. The only other evidence as to whether inclusion of the physiotherapy questions (i.e., Questions 23 and 24) caused the percentage of areas to be tested to depart from the approximations in the Candidate booklet or the percentages stated in the pertinent Board rule was the testimony of Respondent's psychometric expert. It was her general understanding that inclusion of the physiotherapy questions did not alter the percentages because: "They are covered all through the exam I believe." But she conceded that her expertise does not extend to examination content, and she could not testify specifically as to how inclusion of the physiotherapy questions affected the percentages in the Candidate Information Booklet and in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. No "content expert" addressed the issue. It is found that the only place where physiotherapy possibly might fit under the Candidate Information Booklet's description of Physical Diagnosis would be under "clinical judgment." If the physiotherapy questions were assigned to "clinical judgment" under Physical Diagnosis, the ten points assigned to those questions would have to be added to the six points assigned to "clinical judgment" on other parts of the Physical Diagnosis examination, for a total of 16 points, which exceeds the maximum percentage in the Candidate Information Booklet. (As reflected in the Conclusion of Law 42, infra, the same holds true for the percentages stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Health, enter a final order that Petitioner passed the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Post Office Box 37094 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-7094 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
